| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Unportable implementation of background worker start |
| Date: | 2017-04-21 00:05:02 |
| Message-ID: | 5167.1492733102@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2017-04-20 19:53:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So ... what would you say to replacing epoll_create() with
>> epoll_create1(EPOLL_CLOEXEC) ? Then a WaitEventSet would not
>> represent inheritable-across-exec resources on any platform,
>> making it a lot easier to deal with the EXEC_BACKEND case.
> I'm generally quite in favor of using CLOEXEC as much as possible in our
> tree. I'm a bit concerned with epoll_create1's availability tho - the
> glibc support for it was introduced in 2.9, whereas epoll_create is in
> 2.3.2. On the other hand 2.9 was released 2008-11-13.
Also, if it's not there we'd fall back to using plain poll(), which is
not so awful that we need to work hard to avoid it. I'd just as soon
keep the number of combinations down.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-04-21 00:07:21 | Re: Unportable implementation of background worker start |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-04-20 23:59:19 | Re: Unportable implementation of background worker start |